Student Finance

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they are proposing to publish their new proposals on student finance.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we expect to announce the outcome of the review of student finance soon. We shall consult on any proposals for change.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that the outcome of the review will be announced soon. As the Minister will know, the matter has caused considerable havoc among students. Last summer, having discovered how unpopular their regime of tuition fees was, the Government backtracked and suggested they were opting for a graduate tax, then for the Cubie proposals. Now it looks as if they will increase tuition fees for better off students. That leaves students very uncertain about whether they would be better off going to university next September or taking a gap year. Cannot the Minister give us a clearer reply as to precisely when the outcome of the review will be announced?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there has been a huge amount of press speculation but it is entirely that—press speculation. We shall announce the review as soon as we are in a position to give this House and students the information that they require. The noble Baroness will be aware that we have said that students looking to apply for next year should do so on the basis of the current system.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although it is extremely welcome that the Government have conceded that their current system of student finance is simply not working, it is important that any system introduced in the future does not continue to discourage young people from poorer families, particularly those who constitute the first generation of their families to enter higher education from doing so? They should be encouraged by the finance system to enter higher education and not be discouraged as they currently are.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Baroness may know, the aims of the review are to simplify the system especially in the area of hardship support, to provide more upfront support for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, to ensure that all students have access to sufficient financial support throughout their years in higher education and to tackle the problems of debt and the perception of debt. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that those areas fit entirely with what she was asking about.

Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister refers to sufficient financial support, does she understand that that must mean sufficient financial support to be a full-time student and not have to spend 12 or 14 hours a week making money? Does she understand further that much of the non-vocational information in a university course is useful, like a climbing frame, for evaluating critical responses to conflicting evidence? Once undergraduates are reduced by the pressure of the need to earn money to learning one single account by rote, we risk being in a situation where all the money spent on giving them a university education is wasted.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Earl makes important points, but the information from the MORI poll findings suggests that something like 46 per cent of full-time students in 1998-99 were employed during term time. That has not changed significantly from 1995-96. The figures show that at the present time around 40 per cent plus are working during term time. We recognise that this is about balancing and making sure that we have the right system in place. That is why we have taken the time to try to carry out the review effectively.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what on earth she proposes to do about this state of affairs?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we propose to come forward from the review with ideas upon which we shall consult.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the MORI report that the Minister has just mentioned which indicates that poorer students are being burdened with a much higher percentage of debt than more affluent students? Indeed, during the past year that gap has widened. Does the Minister agree that there will be a problem as regards the Government's target of wider access to universities if they do not at the same time ensure that those universities have the means to manage that expansion?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness refers to the Unite/MORI report which referred to a 26 per cent increase in debt. However, that does not compare like with like as last year many students still had a part grant, part loan system. The biggest increase is predicted among students from C2DE backgrounds—I understand that the figure is about £9,376—as they have less family income on which they can call. That is one of the issues under consideration in the review of student support. I believe that significantly larger figures of up to £15,000 have been quoted in the press. Those are inaccurate. We shall, of course, have to consider universities' ability to take the numbers of students we predict will apply. That is all part of the review.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will the review consider the fee regime as between part-time and full-time students? At the moment the fee regime for part-time students is far less favourable than that for full-time students and therefore in that sense inhibits those from lower social classes from applying for part-time courses. Can the Minister tell us anything about that?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the review will consider the whole question of higher education. I am sure that consideration will be given to the most appropriate way forward for all students and that the review will take account of the need to deal with the issues I have raised and the many comments that noble Lords have raised not only in this House but also directly with the department.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the information released by Universities UK 10 days ago, any relief given to students cannot be at the cost of the universities but that the Exchequer will have to dip its hands into its pockets?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I must repeat that all the issues, including that which Universities UK has raised—Universities UK has, of course, played a prominent role in submitting evidence to the review—will be considered.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister have confidence in the figures in the Unite/MORI report or is there an element of under-reporting?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, MORI is a very reputable organisation which carries out a huge amount of research. I should not wish to suggest anything. Of course, issues will arise as to what may or may not be included in any poll. My reading of the report was that it was carried out on the basis of a reasonably good piece of work.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, there is not only a public interest but a considerable private interest on the part of the graduate in obtaining a good degree because it results, I believe, in an average of £400,000 of additional income in the course of a lifetime. Therefore, what are the Government's plans for arranging for a contribution or a graduate tax of some kind to enable that to be recognised?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there has been much speculation about the type of approach that we shall take. All those issues will be deliberated. We have always said that we need to recognise that those who benefit from a university education generally do better. I say "generally"; it does not apply to everyone. We also recognise that that point needs to be recognised to some extent in the course of the review.

Alcohol Advertising

Baroness Strange: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider limiting the form and content of alcohol advertising.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government work closely with the drinks industry to ensure that advertising is socially responsible. The current voluntary arrangements are working well but we are always willing to consider any new proposals which might encourage sensible alcohol consumption.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reasonably helpful reply. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that all students drink? It is an intrinsic and pleasurable part of student existence. Is he also aware that Dundee Students Union, of which I am proud to have been a member, as was my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, has a sensible drinking policy but that it has recently become concerned about a new trend of excessive drinking and bingeing? It wonders whether anything can be done to help to stop that.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I recollect that drinking was an important part of university life, although it has not yet reached the status of an entry requirement. I am also aware that Dundee Students Union has a commendable policy of drawing attention to the seriousness of "binge drinking", as I believe it is called. The Government share the concern about excessive amounts of alcohol being consumed in a short period of time. I should be even more impressed with Dundee Students Union if it were to pass on its policy to its four bars, which promote happy hours each day.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the amount of alcohol consumed by 11 to 16 year-olds has more than doubled over the past decade? I declare an interest as having been the possessor, as it were, of two children falling into that bracket. Is he also aware that the advertising industry spends more on advertising alcopops than it does on advertising wine? In addition, is he aware that schools are often more concerned about alcohol abuse among their pupils than they are about drug abuse—possibly rightly so? What does the noble Lord propose to do to turn that problem around?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, first, we must ensure that the problem is viewed in proportion. Concern about under-age drinking does exist but sometimes it depends on the social context within which it takes place. One knows of friends who allow their children from the age of 14 onwards and in a supervised environment to drink wine with water over a meal. That is hardly a major issue of concern. Alcopops have been, and remain, a concern of the Government in terms of whether they represent an insidious form of promoting drink to young people. In that respect, through £21 million-worth of support per annum to the national curriculum, the Government have taken, and continue to take, action to promote through schools and through the schools forum the sensible use of alcohol and to raise concerns about drugs.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that alcohol is more dangerous for young girls and women than it is for males? Will he ensure that more health education is available in order to inform people of the number of units of alcohol that may safely be consumed?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am aware of that. I believe that it gave rise to the rather sensitive admission by my noble friend Lord Hunt that women have less water and more fat in their bodies, which accounts for the greater propensity of females to metabolise alcohol more slowly. I give that as a piece of scientific information which I know the House would want to hear. On a more serious note, there is a trend for young women to binge-drink—a trend which may have been less prevalent 20 or 30 years ago. As a consequence, they are more susceptible to alcohol. This issue is a focus of the Government's concern and it has led to the development of their alcohol misuse strategy, which is currently being prepared.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that alcohol is probably the most dangerous drug in this country, particularly when it is mixed with soft and hard drugs? Does he also agree that it is responsible for many deaths? Each year 35,000 young people die from alcohol poisoning and many people are killed on the roads. Many murders take place and the abuse of wives and children also occurs because of alcohol. Will the Government consider supporting the Liquor Advertising and Promotion Bill, which I introduced in the last Parliament and which is now waiting in the wings, since it follows very closely the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which the Government now support?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in a word: no. I look forward to reading the Liquor Advertising and Promotion Bill to which the noble Lord draws my attention. However, the facts are not as he says. The most dangerous drug available in this country is tobacco, not alcohol. Each year 120,000 people die from tobacco-related diseases, whereas the number of people who die from cirrhosis of the liver each year is 4,600. That is 4,600 too many, but there is no comparison between the mortality rates of tobacco and alcohol.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the drinks industry could be more helpful as regards the labelling on bottles of alcohol? Does he agree that it would be helpful to have the number of units of alcohol in a bottle of wine printed on the label? Such information could be related to the health education of which we are all aware, and to how many units of alcohol it is safe for a man or a woman to drink in a week. Some bottles of wine contain six units and some contain nine units; it depends on the level of alcohol in the bottle.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have learnt something. I had always thought that there were six units in a bottle of wine. That will probably allow me to increase my weekly dose. To be serious, that is a sensible point that we should consider in the department as we develop the strategy on alcohol misuse. As noble Lords are aware, the definition has changed from 21 units a week for a man to between three and four units a day to try to limit people cheating on binge drinking.

Lord Condon: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Independent Complaints Panel of the Portman Group. Is the Minister aware that the Portman Group, which seeks to promote sensible drinking of alcohol, is currently reviewing all its codes for guidance, self-regulation and complaints, and is seeking observations and recommendations for a new strengthened version of the code to be published in the summer?

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, we are aware of that. We look forward to reading that and hope that it will have a powerful impact.

Seat Belts: Back-seat Passengers

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take steps to encourage back-seat passengers in cars to wear seat belts in accordance with the law, including the prosecution of those who do not.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will continue with its publicity campaigns to encourage seat belt wearing, both in the front of vehicles and in the rear. The observed wearing rate in the rear of a vehicle by adults has increased to 56 per cent and further work is needed to improve on that. Enforcement of the law is for the police. In the year 2000 police in Great Britain issued over 188,000 fixed penalty notices and 8,700 prosecutions were undertaken. Some 6,000 formal written warnings were issued in England and Wales.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Is he aware that seat belts worn in the rear of a vehicle would prevent some 80 per cent of the deaths of people sitting in the front of vehicles? Should I infer from what he has said that so far the publicity campaign has largely been a failure because, on his admission, some 46 per cent of people in the rear of vehicles do not wear seat belts and that prosecutions have not had the desired effect? While recognising the results of the Japanese survey that show that people who sit in the front of vehicles are at such a huge danger from unbelted passengers in the rear, does he agree that the publicity campaign and the efforts to prosecute should be stepped up at once?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the 80 per cent figure was based on the research carried out in Japan, which highlights the importance of wearing a rear seat belt. However, the research published in the Lancet is not indicative of the potential UK savings, because it was a survey of accidents and casualties in Japan where seat belt wearing in the rear of vehicles is not compulsory. The results cannot be read across directly for use in this country. Yes, there is certainly work to be carried out in persuading people to wear seat belts in the rear of cars, but it is worth pointing out that there has been an improvement from the figure of about 46 per cent of people who wear seat belts in the rear to the current figure, which is a significant increase.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while the wearing of seat belts in the rear of vehicles would prevent a great deal of death and disability, much attention needs to be paid by the manufacturers of seat belts to an improved design? Sometimes when one travels by London taxi one can be almost at one's destination before one has managed to fasten the seat belt. On the rare occasion when I am a back-seat passenger in my family car, similar difficulties arise. What are the Government doing to promote better design of rear seat belts?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have experienced difficulty in fastening seat belts—not because I am more water than fat, but for other reasons. It is important. Everybody agrees that if there is a seat belt it should be worn. That is the law now, save in exceptional cases. We want to promote that as much as possible. We shall speak to manufacturers about improving the design, but they are as aware as everybody else that because seat belts are compulsory front and back it is in their interests to have as easy a seat belt locking device as possible.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the insurance industry is doing to promote the wearing of seat belts, both front and rear?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot tell the House specifically what the insurance industry is doing, but I know that the insurance industry has greatly benefited from the increased use of seat belts. It is as aware of that as anybody.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, on the enforcement figures that my noble and learned friend has given for the wearing of seat belts in the rear of vehicles, is he aware that many of us are puzzled that that law can be enforced on the basis of police observation, but it does not appear to be possible to enforce a similarly effective law dealing with the use of mobile phones by drivers on the basis of police observation?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the use of mobile phones by drivers is an important issue. It contributes significantly to accidents. I do not have the statistics in relation to that. As my noble friend rightly points out, this is an area of the law that is enforced by police observation and it could be read across to other areas as well.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, on that point, the wearing of seat belts is subject to the law, which says that a person must wear a seat belt, whereas a driver using a mobile telephone has to be prosecuted by a policeman who observes him or her driving without due care and attention. The latter offence is very difficult to prove. Does that contribute to the fact that such offences are more prevalent than seat belt offences?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am unsure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that driving without due care and attention is more prevalent than seat belt offences. The figures in relation to the enforcement of seat belt wearing are 188,000 cases of fixed penalty notices. I do not have the precise figures, but I would imagine that that is much more than the figures for driving without due care and attention. That figure of 188,000 does not include the 8,683 cases taken to court. The principal point made by the noble Lord is plainly right. Under a fixed penalty system such a matter is easier to deal with than a case that has to go to court with all the attendant administration that that requires.

Lord Acton: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend—

Viscount Astor: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps the House should hear the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, first and then my noble friend Lord Acton.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the increasing percentage of people wearing rear seat belts. However, it was a Conservative government who brought in the legislation. I am delighted that the Minister is using it so well. Of the convictions that he mentioned in an earlier answer, how many relate to convictions for not wearing a seat belt in the front of a vehicle and how many relate to not wearing a seat belt in the rear?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the breakdown between the front and the rear of vehicles. The noble Viscount is absolutely correct to say that the legislation was introduced by a Conservative government. All noble Lords will agree that it is a sensible law. The correct course is to take as many steps as possible to ensure that it is enforced.

Lord Acton: My Lords, with no disrespect to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, can the Leader of the House tell the House whether any Peer has priority? Does the Front Bench opposite have priority over Back-Benchers on this side?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is the normal courtesy. Courtesy tends to be favoured in this House. If my noble friend Lord Acton has a question, he can ask it now.

Lord Acton: My Lords, thank you very much.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend indicate whether his department will take into account the representations that have been made on all sides of the House in relation to this point and convene a meeting of all interested parties to discuss this important issue?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is an important issue. I do not know what else is taking place in relation to enforcement, but the right course is to ensure that all interested parties—the insurance industry, the car manufacturing industry and those concerned with road safety—are regularly consulted about the progress made in this area.

Care Homes

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to reform the personal expenses allowance for older people in residential or nursing care homes.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the current level of the personal expenses allowance is £16.05 per week. Ministers consulted about increasing this to £16.80. Decisions are imminent. This allowance is in addition to other income and assets not taken into account by the financial assessment for residential care.
	The personal expenses allowance should not be spent on services which care homes are contracted to provide by councils, nor on services assessed as necessary by councils and the NHS. The Government will be strengthening guidance to local authorities in that respect.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. But there are many examples of elderly people in residential and nursing care having to use their personal expenses allowance for services which are not demanded but are essential to them, such as chiropody and sometimes to buy birthday presents for their grandchildren. Help the Aged, which recently produced a report, Age Concern and many other organisations can provide many examples. Certainly, they do not always receive the allowance to which they are entitled. Does the Minister agree that what is important is that older people actually receive the allowance—and in fact a higher allowance—and are able to spend it on the things that they really want?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in essence I agree that it is important that older people in care homes receive the personal allowance, or if it is used to offset purchases that those purchases are with their explicit consent, wherever it is possible to receive such a consent.
	The Help the Aged report, which was a survey of some 46 people, is a useful indication of issues. The problem mostly occurred with relatives rather than with the care home management staff themselves. That pointed to the importance of relatives making it clear to their elderly relative that they were entitled to the full amount if they wanted it, or being clear as to what had been withheld where that was not happening. The Government will look into these issues as part of the revised guidance that I mentioned.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Lord indicated that he had read the Help the Aged report: Friday is Pay Day. It contained evidence inter alia of care homes withholding some of the personal allowance in order to meet fees charged by those homes which were not being met by the amounts received from the local authorities. What do the Government intend to do about that?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, whether or not care homes or residential homes think that they do not have enough money from local authorities, that is no justification for their taking money that is the entitlement of older people. Those are issues that they should take up with the local authority itself, as no doubt some of them are so doing. Overall the Government, in developing appropriate supply relationships in the care home industry, are promoting building capacity for care homes, issuing advisory documents to local authorities and stressing the importance of developing longer-term supply relationships rather than short-term spot purchasing.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is an issue that affects the dignity and the health of old people in homes? Having their feet and hair done sounds like a minor thing but it is what makes the difference between individuality and being just a number in a home. I should like much stronger assurances from the Government than I have yet heard that it will be made unlawful for both the home and the local authorities to withhold any of the extremely small amounts of money that most of these old people have.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree. The report reminds one how important small amounts of money over which people can retain personal control can be to retaining one's self respect and dignity when everything else in that environment is provided. That is really crucial for people's self regard. In fact, in the circumstances quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is already illegal for that to take place. It is theirs as of right and theirs lawfully. That is why the Government intend in their guidance, which will be published in April, to make these points explicitly clear to relatives and to care homes, whether they are run by local authorities or are in the private sector.

Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister's response to this Question proves that the Department of Health is now taking over responsibility for the allowances which was traditionally the role of the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Government guarantee that they will use the same upgrading system for these charges in the future as was used by the previous department?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that I would be wise to say that I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the establishment of the National Care Standards Commission will have an important effect on these issues? I refer in particular to the communication of information to older people when they enter residential care and also to their relatives.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we have great confidence in the National Care Standards Commission. It will be an important vehicle in taking forward the national service framework for older people and the Government's commitment to improve the standard of care to older people in our society. We shall watch its work with interest and wish it Godspeed as it starts its work this year.

Business of the House: Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Privy Seal to advance the Committee stage of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill from Thursday 7th February to this day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill

Report received.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Extension of amnesty period]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out "2007" and insert "2005"

Lord Glentoran: Amendment No. 1 is about the message that is being sent to the paramilitaries on decommissioning. In the other place an amendment was moved to bring the extension of the Bill forward for one year only. At Second Reading I made quite clear my views on the Government's handling of the decommissioning issue since they have been in power. They do not need repeating.
	However, what is still open for discussion and debate—and should be—is the length of time that should be put in the Bill as an extension. It can be argued that one year under the present political system is perhaps not enough. Noble Lords on this side of the Committee are as anxious to keep the peace process going forward as I am sure the Government are. But there are messages to be sent. The message must be that the Government today are determined to see the decommissioning issue through; to tackle it; to do everything they can to make it happen; and to be clearly responsible for it.
	My argument is that as the Bill is worded it carries the extension through to 2007 which is beyond the life of this Parliament and this Government. That shows a quite clear abdication of the problem by the present Government. I am sure that that is not their intention. But they should correct that situation. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will take that matter away and give it serious consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have been happy to add my name to the amendment. I touched on the matter in general on another occasion and, as I am aware of the relation between this amendment and Amendment No. 2, I shall venture an opinion on a slightly different aspect. There must be greater priority and precision. We simply cannot let an issue as vital as this continue on and on without any clear determination or explanation at any time of for how long we shall put up with such a charade.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: When one uses an imperative, it normally implies that one has authority and if that imperative is flouted, sanction is available and there is the will to exert that sanction. I support my noble friend's amendment because for a long time now Ministers have been saying that decommissioning should take place and that it must take place. Of course, Her Majesty's Government have authority to say that but, unfortunately, in circumstances with which we are all too familiar, they have failed to secure any but a single tranche of decommissioning from the IRA and one from one of the equally vile loyalist paramilitary organisations. On the other hand, no sanction has been exerted. On the contrary, it is hard to identify any objective of Sinn Fein that has not been yielded unto it.
	The Bill now takes account of the envisaged possibility that five years may elapse with decommissioning still at least incomplete at the end of it. We must ask: does that matter? In my view, harm has already been done. First, the authority and credibility of the commission has surely been harmed. I do not believe that I was alone in reading an implication—an inference—into the statement from General de Chastelaine after the decommissioning in October that more was expected, and soon. That has not happened.
	Secondly, the authority of Her Majesty's Government has undoubtedly been diminished by reason of nothing more having been yielded up by way of decommissioning and nothing having been done by way of sanction. Thirdly, it is right for us at least to note that the morale of Unionists—moderate Unionists—in Northern Ireland has been deeply harmed by that turn of events. When their morale declines to a dangerous level—as it may well have done—the possible consequences are too dangerous to need enumerating.
	If we passed my noble friend's amendment, that would at least show that this Parliament, while having the sponge all too readily at hand, was not prepared to chuck it in, as it will be seen to be doing if the Bill is left unamended. That would show that, even at this stage, this Parliament was prepared to envisage serving out its term with that imperative disobeyed.

Viscount Brookeborough: I rise to support the amendment, but first I must declare an interest. Not only do I live in Northern Ireland, but I have recently become a member of the Northern Ireland policing board. However, my views on arms decommissioning have not changed as a result of that, and anything that I say is not with the authority of any other member of that board.
	Decommissioning was originally set out to take place over two years. That was achieved by majority vote in the north and south of Ireland on the Belfast agreement. There are many occasions on which the Belfast agreement is thrown in our faces in Northern Ireland. People say, "This was agreed, therefore we do it." The Government have followed that line.
	I wonder what gives the Government the authority to keep extending—frankly, it appears to us, in the hope that we forget about it—something that was approved by such a majority in both the north and south of Ireland. It is clearly the wish of everyone there to see arms taken out of the equation on all sides of the terrorist divide. It is sad that, if the Government do not accept the amendment, their integrity will be undermined.
	People in Northern Ireland believe that the Government wish to see the end of this problem, but it does not do the Government a great deal of good to be seen to be bringing forward legislation that puts it all further and further back. The sooner that the problem is solved the better for everybody—not only in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Lord Fitt: As I entered your Lordships' Chamber this afternoon, I ran into a mass exodus of the vast majority of noble Lords from the House. That indicated to me that there is no great concern in your Lordships' House about the Bill, which is of such concern to the people of Northern Ireland. I was not here for the Second Reading debate, but I read an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, who seemed to chide the House with the fact that only Unionist Members had spoken during the debate.
	That is perfectly understandable, because it was Unionist Members who were subjected to a mass campaign of murder and mayhem by the activities of the IRA during the past 30 years. Not only Unionists were victims. I myself was a victim of terrorism in Northern Ireland by both sides—both the IRA and the so-called loyalist terrorists who murdered my closest friends.
	The Bill and its ramifications are of tremendous concern to the people of Northern Ireland. I intervene in this debate to try to bring some reality to the Government Front Bench. It has repeatedly been said that the decommissioning of illegal arms in Northern Ireland by both sections—the loyalists and the Republicans—was part of the Belfast agreement. Since then, concession after concession has been made in a most overt way to the Republicans, but also to the loyalist paramilitaries.
	I should like to pose the Minister a question that I heard in Belfast all last week. Ordinary people in the streets—who know what the Bill is about and who know that further concessions have been made to the paramilitary organisations for another five years—have asked me, and I ask the Minister on the Front Bench, the following question. What would happen if a statement were issued next week by P. O'Neill, which is the IRA's pseudonym, which said: "We are not going to decommission any of our arms. We are telling you now in straightforward terms that we are not going to decommission any further arms"? What sanction do the Government have at their disposal against that statement? The answer is, "Absolutely none".
	I read some of the speeches made at Second Reading. One speaker suggested that we should bring our influence to bear on other countries so that they might apply some pressure to the IRA and other organisations. That is not possible. There are many countries who support what the IRA and the loyalist organisations have been doing over the past 30 years. In effect, we are saying that other countries should apply pressure to the IRA on decommissioning. That is not a possibility; it will not help.
	It may be that America will try to apply such pressure. It has itself been the victim of terrorism. It may be that American influence could be applied to the IRA. However, I doubt that the vast majority of Irish-Americans, who have given active moral and financial support to the IRA over the years, will, all of a sudden, put sincere pressure on the IRA to bring about decommissioning.
	I do not believe—I say this with great regret—that the IRA will decommission any more guns. It is a heartbreak to have to say that, but the fact is that the Government are letting the IRA off the hook by saying that they will give them another five years. The IRA must be laughing up their sleeves at the Government and at every concession that has been made in recent years in all the agreements and discussions that have taken place—particularly those at Weston Park. I believe that it was at Weston Park that they arrived at the conclusion that there would be an extension for another five years.
	I listened to Radio 4 this morning. I heard clips from New York where many elected representatives from Northern Ireland are instead of being at Stormont and in Northern Ireland where the problem is. They are all in America. I do not know what they hope to achieve from those discussions. They would be better staying in Northern Ireland and trying to reach an accommodation.
	My main reason for speaking in the debate—I repeat that I say this with great regret—is that the Government have made concession after concession until they have no more sanctions that can force the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries to engage in further decommissioning of their arms. There is nothing with which the Government can threaten them. Those paramilitary organisations—loyalist and republican—can say to the Government, "You can talk as much as you like; we will hold onto our arms".

Lord Smith of Clifton: Everyone wants decommissioning, of course. The question is what priority one should put on it, as we move towards a more normal situation in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning became too much of an aspiration in the endless negotiations both prior to the conclusion of the Belfast agreement and subsequently. If memory serves me right, it was the noble Lord, Lord Eames, who made that comment some months ago in your Lordships' House.
	I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about who is likely to be able to bring the most persuasive pressure on the IRA and others, but we probably disagree about where it might come from, or the way in which it will come. Little further will be achieved by continuing to grandstand the republicans on the issue. Further decommissioning will come about in the near future only when and if the United States Administration deliver another ultimatum to Sinn Fein. That is the realpolitik of the situation.
	We can stamp our feet and scream as much as we like, but it will have absolutely no effect on the IRA. We can all agree on that. Therefore, continuing to have decommissioning times that come and go is debilitating to the wider process. That is why, on these Benches, we think that we should go for a quinquennium, before the issue comes up again, in the great hope that the development of democracy in Northern Ireland overtakes the issue and that, if necessary, the United States Administration will use their good offices again to apply pressure for decommissioning.
	At the moment—thank goodness—the republican guns are reasonably silent, as opposed to those of the loyalist paramilitaries whose current campaign of murder, bombing and mayhem is perhaps the biggest risk to security in Northern Ireland. For that reason, we do not support the amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am one of the host—the vast majority—of Members of your Lordships' House who take little part in debates on the affairs of Northern Ireland. I speak now only because the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made me feel ashamed of not having done so before.
	One of the reasons why I have not spoken is that I do not know what I would like the Government to do. The difficulty is—I place no blame for it—that once one feels obliged to sit down and talk to men of violence, who will not hesitate to use violence and who have no scruples or any thought of remorse afterwards, it is difficult to get up again and resume a policy of strength. However, at least the amendment offers to people such as myself an opportunity to express—briefly—a sense of the failure of this country even to make a pretence of standing up to such people and saying that we cannot go any further until the business of decommissioning—which was a commitment—is taken to its end and fulfilled. We have not done so.
	The noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux of Killead and Lord Fitt, referred to the people of Northern Ireland. I would find it difficult to explain to the people of Northern Ireland, at one and the same time, that we were giving further time for the fulfilment of a solemn obligation and that, in addition, we would publicly afford a welcome to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, previously denied, to those who, although elected to Parliament, have not seen fit or felt able to take the traditional oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen and to the things for which this country stands. Had either of those two tenants of rooms in the Palace of Westminster ever expressed any grain of remorse or pity towards those whom they have hurt, one might, I suppose, feel differently. As it is, the amendment offers us at least a chance of saying that enough is enough, and, even if it is not passed into law, of indicating the sickness and shame over concessions which many of us feel we have been forced into making to men who have so far shown themselves to be wicked and totally unwilling to forsake the ways of violence.

Lord Desai: I did not speak in the Second Reading debate but I have contributed to Northern Ireland debates and scrupulously attended many of them.
	As acknowledged even by people supporting Amendment No. 1, passing it will not make a jot of difference to anything which happens. It will simply make the Government look ridiculous. I am not speaking on behalf of the Government; I never do. But let me try and explain what I feel happened in Northern Ireland.
	The IRA were not defeated, nor did they give in. Her Majesty's troops were not defeated, nor did they give in. Therefore there was a truce. As my noble friend Lord Fitt said, it is not within the power of Her Majesty's Government to implement any pre-emptive notice to the IRA saying, "If you do not do this, we will do X". Whatever that "X" was, it would simply harm the process which has been taking place.
	This is a tricky situation in which we have not found ourselves before. Long ago, perhaps in colonies far away, it happened, but I do not want to repeat those stories. Because of the peculiar location of Northern Ireland and the jurisdiction, this is a process in which we will have to be patient. It will happen. Indeed, if we think about it, decommissioning is much further forward than it was two years ago. I know events move slowly, but we have progressed.
	Patience is required because this is a tricky situation. It is important to remember that the guns are silent—that is, the guns on the Irish side. Other movements are sprouting up all over the place, but at least the Provisional IRA guns are silent. We must exercise a lot of patience and see this process through. It is no good doing things which only make us look more impotent. Therefore I urge the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, having moved this amendment and having heard the discussion, to withdraw it. It will not be helpful.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I strongly support Amendment No. 1 for a number of reasons. The first is that we still have to demonstrate to the majority of people in Northern Ireland that we seriously wish to protect them against the gun. As already stated, the IRA have never given anything without getting enormous concessions in return. The time for concessions has to stop and the people must be reassured that the Government have at least enough belief in themselves not to appease. They may say, "Another year". We may have to do that. But they must not give the IRA another five years. To the ordinary people of Northern Ireland that would be a complete betrayal.
	The Americans also will respect us more and do more if we are seen to stick to our guns—a rather unfortunate phrase—and not allow any more delay than is absolutely necessary. Anything else is appeasement. If the noble Lord will forgive me, it is not true to say that the gun is silent. It has stopped killing policemen and soldiers temporarily. It has not stopped killing their own communities and it has not stopped violence. The paramilitaries are reigning supreme.
	Meanwhile, in the South, the Taoiseach, the Irish Government and the Irish parties are saying (whether or not they can stick to their guns over it) that if they ever have to form a government, they will never form it with Sinn Fein. If they can take that stand over the IRA, surely we, who are in Northern Ireland by rights because the majority chose to stay in the United Kingdom—let me remind the Committee of that—can say that enough is enough. It will not serve our relations with the people or create any trust in the people if we do not say enough is enough.
	Unfortunately, the Government still have more concessions in their quiver. They can still give amnesty to the people on the run; they can withdraw more troops; they can destroy more observation towers; they can back down over all sorts of major issues in relation to the police; they can still destroy the Special Branch. All those are things the IRA still want. At the very least we ought to be getting something in return.
	I accept that decommissioning is unreal because the IRA can simply go out and buy more arms. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the people of Northern Ireland believe that the Government are prepared to stand up for their rights and insist that the bargain is kept. We do not have the right simply to say, "It is in the interests of the peace process". What peace process? When we look at the streets of Northern Ireland, what peace process do we see? The Government have no choice but to extend as far as the law allows. I accept that if the decommissioning Act lapsed, that would create a new situation. I suppose there will have to be an extension. But it should not be for longer than is absolutely necessary.
	I feel strongly that, in the name of a totally illusory peace process, we do not have the right to give away any more than has been given already, particularly since the people of Northern Ireland must now be wondering whether they are going to be sold down the river in the future through the successes of the IRA in electoral fraud.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I too have not spoken on Northern Ireland, though it is my part of the world. This amendment says something that is extremely important and I want to challenge only one suggestion—that it is realpolitik not to vote for the amendment. It is not. It is comfortable and cosy, but it is not realpolitik. Realpolitik has to take into account the real forces that are ranged for and against the amendment.
	We know that it is extraordinarily difficult for moderate unionists to continue to support the amendment. A signal from this Chamber and from this Parliament would be extremely important. I can only agree with other Members of the Committee who have said that simply to push decommissioning away into the mid-distance or Never Never Land is to give the wrong signal at this time. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: When a number of years ago my noble friend Lord Molyneaux asked me to write a paper on decommissioning, I did so in the belief that the Government of the United Kingdom would at least understand the nature of what I had written. The example we had in years prior to that of NATO and the Warsaw pact countries holding each other at bay with a large range of weapons and then moving slowly but inexorably towards a disarmament process that allowed a more normal relationship to exist was an important example and one that should be applied on the micro-scale to our situation in Northern Ireland.
	Many of us never believed that we could persuade the terrorist organisations that there was an option—terrorism or democracy—and that they should choose democracy unless we made it patently clear that we were prepared, whatever the sins of the past, whatever the atrocities of the past, to provide a vehicle whereby those who had been terrorists could move fully into the democratic structure. That has been a long and painful journey from 1994. It led to a situation which many of my tradition and many of the nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland failed to understand. We believed that before we achieved a foolproof example of terrorist organisations eschewing forever terrorism we could bring them, bit by bit, within the democratic process. That in itself was a contradiction, but many of us believed—sadly we have been proven wrong—that the Government could be depended upon to ensure that inexorable progress would be made.
	Look at the situation today in terms of international terrorism and consider how the Government, along with our western allies, have adopted a most uncompromising approach to anyone or any organisation which indulges in terrorism, which has arms and explosives it is prepared to use against civilian populations, and then look at the way in which the Prime Minister has accommodated those who have not made any significant move towards disarmament.
	We are told that one of the reasons we are so concerned with modern international terrorism is that there are stockpiles of poison gases and weapons, including nuclear weapons, that have to be dealt with before the bin Ladens can get their hands on them. On the microscale, it is no different for the civilian population in Northern Ireland. We have to see the detonators and explosives—the catalysts for the huge bombs that we have suffered from over the years—and the guns removed, whoever may succeed. Someone said that the guns are silent today, but who is to tell me that organisations which will use these weapons will not spring up in two years, five years or 10 years time? After 30 years, how can we build a democracy—a true, sharing democracy—on the uncertainty created by guns within our society?
	There are many anomalies in what is happening to us within our own United Kingdom. I heard someone say that the IRA had not been defeated, nor had our forces been defeated. In fact, our forces are being asked to act as though they have been defeated. We see that in terms of what is happening to the police.
	I do not want to infringe on the protocol of your Lordships' House by talking for too long on this subject. Suffice to say that within the leaderships accepted by the democratic process—particularly in terms of Sinn Fein— there are those who are within the leadership of the IRA. I do not put too fine a point on it if I say that Gerry Adams is, ex officio, a member of the IRA army council because he is the president of Sinn Fein. It is now accepted that Martin McGuinness was a Chief of Staff of the IRA. He is now, for better or for worse, the Minister for Education. Mr Doherty—recently elected to another place—is also a member or an ex-member of the IRA army council.
	For the Government to pretend that these people need to be subsidised by half-a-million pounds per year—year in, year out—in order to keep alive a peace process from which their tradition as well as mine could benefit, is unacceptable. For that reason I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has brought forward the amendment. I hope that we will be able to put into the context of national and international politics what we are trying to achieve by the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for being the third member of the Committee to pre-empt his speech as he was about to make it. I had not intended to speak, but a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—reinforced by the subsequent reference made to it by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth—brings me to my feet.
	Let me put my remarks in context. We all know the details and the terms of the Belfast agreement. There is an element of crying over spilt milk that the terms were as they were and that they were without sanctions, in particular in regard to the responsibility of parties to make "best endeavours" on decommissioning. None on these Benches was privy to the thinking of the Government when they negotiated the Belfast agreement on those particular terms—that will be a matter for historians.
	Nor is it my part to defend the Government—I cannot tell whether or not I should give the Government the benefit of the doubt—but, as a bystander, I cannot help remarking that just as fatigue no doubt assaulted and assailed other parties to the agreement in the watches of the night on the morning of that Good Friday when the agreement was being finally determined, the Government and their advisers were not themselves immune to fatigue either, and the full implications of what they were doing may not have been clear to them in terms of what has subsequently developed.
	None of us knows what endeavours—it is "best endeavours" that were meant to be made—the IRA or any of the other paramilitaries have made over recent years, although we know the fact of the decommissioning which occurred last autumn.
	The phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which brought me to my feet—and to which my noble friend Lady Park referred—was "the guns are silent". It is in that context and in that atmosphere that we are debating these matters today. I have no emotional capital tied up in the report produced in the previous Parliament in another place by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the behaviour of the paramilitaries towards those they were sending into exile, but it is worth mentioning the histograms drawn up on page 58 of Volume 2, which is devoted to evidence. They show that after the cease-fires in 1994 and 1998, there is no marked difference in the amount of punishments which have been administered, but there is a very marked difference in the use of the gun. There have been a great many more shooting incidents since the cease-fire in 1998 than there were after the cease-fire in 1994.
	One is ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that the paramilitaries on either side are simply pushing their luck to see where are the limits in the use of the gun, but it would be quite wrong to say—although I understand the terms in which the noble Lord used the phrase—that the guns are silent. The guns are noisier than they were before the Belfast agreement and after the 1994 cease-fire in that regard.
	I support the argument that we should maintain the pressure in this House. The nation as a whole attaches importance to the issue of "best endeavours"—they are not empty words—and the horizon for decommissioning should not be unduly extended.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Some harsh words have been used in the debate: "abdication of responsibility", "charade" and "integrity undermined". Then there was the rhetorical question from the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: "What peace process?". The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, spoke of failure.
	I do not believe that it has been a story of unmitigated failure. The Assembly is working—not perfectly, but with a growing spirit of co-operation, and that is a remarkable achievement in terms of the centuries of history of which we know. It is truly irresponsible not to recognise that.
	It is not responsible to overlook the fact that the historic constitutional claim of the Irish Republic has been given up, following a referendum. These are not perfect solutions to difficult questions. However, I suggest that the history of the past five years has not been one of entire gloom.
	It is just as well to bear in mind what is being proposed; namely, the original Bill and what would be the consequence of the amendment were it to be passed. The original Act, introduced when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, set out a scheme that was not intended to be a time-frame for decommissioning. It was never put forward on that basis. It was put forward, as I understand it, on the basis that this was the usual period for time-limited Acts. It is important to remind ourselves that the original Act—and it would remain the case were it to be amended—is subject to annual renewal by Parliament on the affirmative procedure. That is the basis of the existing Act, which expires at the end of this month, and it would be the basis of any continuation if your Lordships allow it.
	Therefore, we are not saying that this is a time-frame for decommissioning of five years—nor, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, of three years. What we are disputing is whether or not there should be an extension of the Act. I repeat the important point that the Act is subject to annual extension on the basis of the affirmative procedure.
	My noble friend Lord Fitt asked what would be the sanctions if the IRA made the declaration of which he spoke. The answer is that there is the parliamentary sanction, because Parliament does not have to approve on the affirmative procedure what it does not seek to do.
	The real difference here is not whether we should ever have engaged in discussions with the IRA or with other armed groups. That is not the question. The short question to which the amendment draws our minds is: should there be an extension of the order-making power for three years (as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seeks) or should it be an extension of the ability of the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative process, for five years? That is the difference between us. I respectfully suggest that the prudent course, subject to the constraints of parliamentary power, which has to be supreme, every year, is to go for the extension on the basis on which the original Act was introduced.
	I very much hope that in three years' time, let alone in five years' time, this provision will not be required. Those who know Northern Ireland better than I do may be gloomier in that context. However, I revert to what I said on an earlier occasion. If the human mind and the human heart can change, whether it be the loyalist criminals or the Irish Republican Army criminals, do we need the mechanism provided by the Bill—described by the noble and learned Lord as a possessory amnesty? I believe that we do. If the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the Committee, I ask Members of the Committee—

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Will the Minister give way? Has any progress made since 1998 been the result of any initiative by the Government? Has it not in fact resulted from an initiative by David Trimble, who moved the democratic process to the very edge of survival in order to force Sinn Fein-IRA to make some move towards that process? How often is David Trimble going to have to carry the burden without the tangible support of this Government?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that the question put is a true question. Mr Trimble has been extraordinarily courageous. He has looked for the support of the British Government and he has received it. It is no coincidence in my opinion—and I was talking to Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan only in the past few days, having had the privilege of meeting them in their office in the Assembly. David Trimble is a very courageous and considerable public servant. He is entitled to look for support from the British Government. However, I believe that this enabling legislation in part—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that is it not the total answer—offers the opportunity for progress. I do not believe that we should truly respect and honour the work of David Trimble were we not full-hearted in our support of what he, Mark Durkan and others have been able to do in the Assembly—and Seamus Mallon previously. This is an enabling measure which offers part of the answer to a problem that has beset us all for centuries.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank all my noble friends and other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this extremely thoughtful debate, as I hope the Committee will agree. In particular, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, to our discussions on Northern Ireland matters.
	We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and to a lesser degree the noble Lord, Lord Smith, suggest that decommissioning should be part—it is not a necessary part—of the process. I hope that I am not going overboard in saying that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that a diktat from the United States, from the White House, could have a significant impact on the situation.
	As I said in my opening remarks, the amendment and the debate that we have had are about messages. They are about sending to the paramilitaries another message from the Government that they will not put decommissioning on a long pole; that they are determined to make something happen one way or another.
	The Minister remarked that the Assembly is working. I have complimented the Government previously on that point from this Dispatch Box. But I must also ask him: how long for? I have just returned from Northern Ireland, having spent what has been for me one of the more depressing weekends there. I spoke to people from several quarters, including members of the judiciary and the construction industry, and drivers. I have never felt the people of Northern Ireland, particularly of the Unionist persuasion, to be so deflated and demoralised—to say nothing of the figures for absenteeism in the Northern Ireland Police Service about which I heard.
	The amendment is about sending a message to the paramilitaries and to a part of the United Kingdom whose people feel deserted, knocked about and not loved. It has an Assembly which is working, but which is coming up for re-election in the not-too-distant future. I hope that all Members of the Committee, and the Government, will agree with me that the best outcome of another election for the Assembly will be for the centre parties to remain in basic control of that Assembly. I hope that none of us wants polarisation outwards to the extremes of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
	I firmly believe that this is an important amendment. Today may not be the day to press it. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said and other debates that we are going to have, for this afternoon I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 2:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"COMMENCEMENT
	This Act shall not come into force until after the Commission established under section 7 of the 1997 Act shall have laid a report before both Houses of Parliament on progress made in decommissioning since the coming into effect of the 1997 Act."

Lord Glentoran: This amendment is on the same lines as the previous one, although it may not appear so. It is again about the morale and understanding of the people of Northern Ireland. All the people of Northern Ireland deserve to know what Sinn Fein/IRA and other paramilitaries are doing with regard to decommissioning to take the violence out of Northern Irish politics. The amendment would require the commission that was established by the 1997 Act to lay a report before Parliament on the progress of decommissioning before the commencement of the Act. We do not want to delay the decommissioning process—indeed, we wish to speed it up. However, we want to see tangible progress and we would like to see independent verification of that progress.
	The people of Northern Ireland deserve something. I believe that there has been significant decommissioning and so does David Trimble, but the people of Northern Ireland do not. There is no question of that.
	My original thoughts when drafting the amendment went considerably wider—so wide that the Clerks would not allow me my way. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a list of the organisations and groups in contract today with the decommissioning commission in relation to decommissioning, together with details of the number of visits carried out by or on behalf of the commission in relation to decommissioning, a report into the extent to which the commission believes that the decommissioning scheme has been a success and other matters in relation to the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives. In short, the amendment is about attempting again to get an encouraging message across to the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning is real and is happening and that the whole process is a long way from being one-sided. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I indicated earlier that I might want to say a few words about this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said, we have been performing a real service in concentrating our attention on the imperative of making disarmament real and not a mere fiction. There must be some finality—we cannot go on drifting. Idle chatter about putting weapons beyond use, identifying unnamed bunkers, letters signed by the mythical P O'Neill and other meaningless phrases have devalued the word "decommissioning". When one seeks to cut through such verbiage, one is accused of demanding ceremonial surrender—which accusation is entirely without foundation.
	My noble friend Lord Maginnis has triggered my memory and taken me back to a not unimportant discussion that he and I had in my room close on midnight a good many years ago. We were thinking about disarmament following conflict. He may remember my explanation of what happened to me 57 years ago. As the Second World War was drawing to an end, our small Royal Air Force unit was ordered to a place called Flensburg on the Danish frontier, about 120 miles behind the German lines. Your Lordships might ask what I was doing there. Our object was to grab a Luftwaffe base to which had been flown a large selection of German experimental rocket aircraft from the Peenemunde experimental station, which was being overrun by the Russians. The Air Vice-Marshal commanding 83 Group felt that it was important to prevent them falling into the hands of the Russians. I do not know whether he was also nervous about certain other people getting hold of them, but it would not have been tactful to have said so at the time.
	When we got there, nearly 9,000 German officers and men insisted—there is a certain parallel here with what we are speaking about today—first on retaining their arms to defend themselves from the Russian armies, which were then moving westward, because the war had not finished. When we refused to fall for that one, they then wanted to assist us—if you please—in halting the westward march of the Russian divisions. As allies of a sort, we could not possibly fall for that one. The next demand was from the officers, who insisted on retaining their arms to preserve discipline over their own ranks. Another ploy was to negotiate honourable terms so that they would not lose face and appear defeated to their own supporters. Finally, they said that they would surrender only to British forces and not to the allied forces.
	My commanding officer, who was a very impressive character, bluntly informed all present that we would only accept unconditional surrender on behalf of the supreme commander, General Eisenhower. Oddly enough, we achieved that within hours, two days before the war ended, although two of us got shot in the process.
	The allied disarmament commission then swung into action. This is where we can derive a lesson from those events. Within five days it was operating. Over the years I have become convinced that if we had not been rock solid in those early days in carrying out the decisions that had been made by the big three at the Yalta conference some months before and if we, the allies, had embarked on an untidy, endless series of parleys, Britain and America could not possibly have resisted the subsequent years of Russian aggression. The occasional statement by Herr P O'Neill would have thrown the NATO organisation into confusion.
	It is possible that some will try to persuade your Lordships that the surrender of terrorist weapons would be inappropriate because the republican terrorists were not defeated. Others have illustrated that that is not quite accurate. We must face the solid fact that when the IRA announced a cessation of military activities—and that is all that they have said thus far, after all the years—they were losing the struggle and well they knew it. For two years before they had been forced to accept almost 80 per cent of their atrocities being aborted as a result of penetration by the intelligence services. Secondly—and very regrettably—the so-called loyalist terrorists had been inflicting heavier casualties on the IRA than they themselves were inflicting. The IRA were forced to try a more productive ploy. As they look at the steady stream of concessions that have been referred to several times in the debate, they must feel well satisfied with the bargain that they made.
	It is for all of us in both Houses of Parliament to decide whether we should continue to play with that loaded dice.

Lord Fitt: I believe that it is a reasonable amendment. All that it asks of Government is that the commission set up by the government to inquire into the decommissioning of illegal arms should place its findings before the House. The House could then see at first hand the position of the IRA in relation to its ongoing discussions with the commission.
	I and many people in Northern Ireland will be asking these questions. What now is the function of the commission? How many times does it meet? Does it meet once a week, twice a week, every month, every three months or only, as it appears to be, when there is some crisis and P O'Neill issues a statement to General de Chastelain? It is only right and fair that the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives in the House of Commons and here, should know how the commission functions in between statements from P O'Neill, the spokesman for the IRA. The amendment provides that we should not agree with the Bill unless we are made aware of the thinking underlying the commission.
	I asked what sanction the Government had if P O'Neill issued a statement to the effect that the IRA were not going to decommission its arms. I was disappointed with the Minister's reply. He said that the sanction is that we may not pass an affirmative order next year or the year after in relation to the Bill. Does the Minister think that that will scare the living daylights out of the IRA? What does it mean if the House says, "We shall not pass that affirmative order"? The IRA will laugh at it.
	My noble friend Lord Desai takes an interest in Northern Ireland. The previous amendment asked for a reduction in the time limit from five to three years. In his opening remarks, my noble friend said that if that amendment were passed it would make us look ridiculous. I use his exact words. We look extremely ridiculous in the eyes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland if we continue to make concession after concession to the IRA.
	Last year I got fed up with listening to the new word coined with regard to Northern Ireland—"choreography". Everyone, including the biggest dunderhead in Northern Ireland, ran around talking about choreography. It was supposed to mean that if the Government moved on a particular aspect of the peace process the IRA would make a move in their direction. I have seen no choreography coming from the IRA or Sinn Fein. The happenings since the Belfast agreement are regarded as a big "plus". Stormont was set up. Let me tell the Government that the setting up of Stormont was no great concession by the Government. The IRA and Sinn Fein wanted Stormont set up; they wanted their Government Ministers there. So no great concession was being made. The IRA wanted inter-government. It wanted to see Stormont brought back on its terms.
	As to choreography, what did we get from Weston Park with regard to arms? The IRA demanded and obtained the dismantling of the watch-towers and army establishments all around the border in Northern Ireland. People could see what was happening. They saw it on television. They saw the British Army dismantling those army outposts. So that was disarming, demobilisation or decommissioning on the British side; but how do we know what happened on the Irish side? General de Chastelain stated that he saw some arms—we do not know how many or how few. The people of Northern Ireland were able to see the decommissioning by the British Army and security forces, but they did not see the decommissioning of the illegal weapons held by the IRA.
	I want to make clear that I do not concentrate on the IRA. My remarks include the illegal arms which are still being used by the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Those who watched last night a Channel 4 television programme on the activities of the UDA cannot but be frightened by the continuing holding of arms by that organisation. Anything I say about decommissioning is not directed at the IRA but at all such organisations.
	The Minister said that the sanction against the IRA's refusal to decommission is that the Government will not pass an affirmative order. What effect will that have on the loyalist paramilitaries who daily are beating up and knee-capping people in Northern Ireland? Will they be worried about an affirmative order? I again ask the Minister: what will be the effect if this House refuses an affirmative order to carry out this legislation? What can we do? There are no further sanctions that the Government are prepared to make.
	I believe that another concession is in the offing. We await an amnesty for IRA republican prisoners who are on the run in the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that the Government will make that concession. Although I totally disagree with such an amnesty, would not it be possible for the Government to say, "We shall not grant this amnesty unless you engage actively in decommissioning your illegal arms"? I do not think that the Government are going to say that; I wish that they would.
	The sanction referred to by the Minister is that the Government will refuse to pass an affirmative order. The fact is—the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches agreed with me and we have disagreed more often than we have agreed—that we are asking the Americans to apply sanctions to stop the IRA. The biggest sanction against the illegal arms of the IRA could be brought by the Americans. The Americans can refuse Sinn Fein their visas. They can stop money being taken out of America to fill the IRA coffers. But, in effect, we at the heart of Government in the United Kingdom are saying, "We cannot stop the IRA from holding on to their arms but, please Mr and Mrs America, will you do the job for us?" That is a very sad reflection on the Government of this country.

Lord Monson: In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, informed us that whatever the establishment might believe, the ordinary people of Northern Ireland do not believe that any significant decommissioning has taken place. If the ordinary people of Northern Ireland continue to think the way they do, the electoral consequences in Northern Ireland in the near and medium-term future will not be to the Government's—or to most other people's—liking. That surely is yet another reason for accepting the amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendment would not have any effect of any practical virtue. The effect would be only to give the commission a power to lay a report before Parliament, imposing on it no obligation to do so. Indeed, the report could say nothing more than is already in the public domain; it could be of any quality, satisfactory or not to Parliament. I understand the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment but it would not have the slightest legal or practical effect.
	There are other questions. The commission was set up following the report of the international body. That report was accepted by the then Conservative Government in this country and the Government in the Irish Republic. Section 7 of the subsequent Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 sets up,
	"an independent organisation established by an agreement, made in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland between Her Majesty's Government in the UK and the Government of the Republic of Ireland".
	In historic terms, just to complete the narrative, there was also the treaty agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic. As I think your Lordships know, Article 4 of that treaty put upon the commission the duty "to report periodically", not to the Dail in Dublin or to Parliament at Westminster, but,
	"to both Governments and, through whatever mechanisms they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland".
	I understand and do not disrespect the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seeks. I understand it perfectly because he explained it with admirably clarity. However, Amendment No. 2 would not achieve the conclusion he desires. In fact, such provision would effectively give the commission the determining view on when the legislation should come into effect. If the commission did not report before the end of this month, the possessory amnesty—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden referred—would fall.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. He is also quite right; I understand what the non-effect of passing this amendment would be. I know and believe him when he says that he understands my purposes in moving the amendment. Most of us in this place know that the decommissioning that has taken place is being kept secret at the request of the republican movement. I have even been told that those in that movement might be embarrassed if the information were to get out to their own people.
	However, that being as it may, there is a real message. I believe that the Government have heard what has been said on almost all sides by your Lordships about the message to the people of Northern Ireland. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	House resumed : Bill reported without amendment.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Registration: provision of signature and date of birth]:

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 10, after "completed;" insert—
	"( ) the national insurance number of each such person, if he has one;"

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I have received a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, seeking to assure me that the Government will table amendments that are in line with my Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 5 which seek to empower the chief electoral officer to collect a national insurance number, if there is one, on each application to join the electoral register. The noble and learned Lord has also assured me that the Bill will be amended to require absentee voters to state their national insurance number on applications for a postal or proxy vote. His letter concluded by saying that such action will prove effective in our efforts to combat electoral fraud.
	I believe that requiring voters' national insurance number, if they have one, in addition to their date of birth and signature would go some way to addressing the issue. I was therefore rather puzzled by the statement in another place of Mr Des Browne that it would be impossible for the chief electoral officer to check all one million or so individuals on the Northern Ireland electoral register. He asked in another place that an amendment that was similar to mine be withdrawn on the grounds that such a provision would be impractical.
	I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us what he has in mind and whether Mr Des Browne might have overstated or misunderstood what we are trying to achieve. When we speak about electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, we are not talking simply about foolishness, individual perversity or mistakes; we are talking about behaviour that is so carefully orchestrated that anyone with any practical experience of Northern Ireland would doubt whether any Sinn Fein Member could have arrived as an elected Member of this Parliament without electoral fraud. My noble friend Lord Fitt was one of the first to suffer from electoral fraud. Joe Hendron also suffered from it in the West Belfast seat that is now held by Gerry Adams. More recently, the constituency which I represented for 18 years and from which I retired with a 14,000 majority suddenly experienced a swing because of orchestrated and organised abuse of normal electoral practice.
	Not only do we have to take action to prevent people from illegally registering or illegally acquiring a proxy or postal vote; we also have to ensure that this legislation goes further by specifying the consequences for a party as well as for an individual of the orchestrated abuse of the electoral process. I believe that the legislation is currently weak in that respect.
	Even after spending 18 years in another place, I am not a legislative expert. However, I do not believe that it is beyond the competence of Her Majesty's Government to include provisions in the Bill to deal with every aspect of electoral malpractice. I shall not go further into the matter now. I believe that the assurances which I have received in writing from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be welcomed by all who want not only the survival of the democratic process in Northern Ireland but its retrenchment. For a number of years, it has been exploited in a manner that has not benefited society. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Without wishing to pre-empt any noble Lord who might want to speak on the amendment, perhaps I may assist Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, very generously referred to the letter that I wrote to him. I hope that I managed to write on 31st January to everyone in this House who I thought had a similar interest. If I confirm my position I believe that it will help debate on further amendments that are differently grouped but which, none the less, have a connection with the requirement for national insurance numbers to be given.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was quite right to say that these matters were raised in the other place. Indeed, they were also mentioned on Second Reading in this place when I promised faithfully that I would look at them with an open mind if they were improvements to the Bill that could be accepted or perhaps even improved upon consistent with the scheme of the Bill. I have had discussions with Mr Browne. We both pressed the case, which I believed was strongly held in Northern Ireland and also in this Chamber by various noble Lords. It all goes to show that the immediate response is not necessarily the perfect one.
	A good deal of further consideration has been given to these proposals. I am most grateful for the energy with which Mr Des Browne has pursued the issue regarding the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral process. We wanted to consider something that was workable and would not impose unduly heavy burdens. Therefore, I can confirm that I intend to bring forward amendments on Report to empower the Chief Electoral Officer to collect a person's national insurance number, if he has one, on his application to the electoral register. We do not propose that someone who does not have a number should simply obtain one for the purposes of registering. However, I should imagine that the vast majority of people do possess a national insurance number.
	I turn to a matter that I know worries some noble Lords. We also intend to require absent voters to state their national insurance number on any application for a postal or proxy vote. As regards the noble Lord's other point about false information being given, I can confirm that it is our intention to bring forward further amendments in that respect. Anyone who supplies a false national insurance number, or states that he does not have a number when in fact he has, will be guilty of a criminal offence. We shall also enable the Chief Electoral Officer to make checks with the individual concerned, and with the Department for Works and Pensions, to satisfy himself of the authenticity of the claim made.
	I hope that noble Lords will accept that as a positive response to the troubles and concerns expressed in this place. I intervened at this stage because the national insurance issue seems to recur in a number of different amendment groupings.

Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the Minister for that further explanation. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, it was heartening to receive the noble and learned Lord's letter. This response recognises the scale of fraud that is taking place in Northern Ireland. The amendments to which I have attached my name, both as an originator and as a supporter, have been tabled because noble Lords on these Benches have a passionate belief in the need to maintain as good a democracy in Northern Ireland as we can manage. If members of Sinn Fein sincerely wish to embrace the principle of democracy and of representative government—and, indeed, to enjoy the facilities and the emoluments that go with elected office—it is absolutely vital that they abjure all electoral malpractices; and, equally importantly, that they do everything in their power to stamp them out among their supporters.
	Intimidation and personation are the electoral equivalent of beatings and knee-cappings. Democracy requires free and open elections if it is to flourish in Northern Ireland, as anywhere else. Therefore, those of us who hinted on Second Reading that a requirement for national insurance numbers on registration was desirable have tabled such amendments so as to provide the kind of belt-and-braces approach that is necessary.
	There is the further question of whether or not identity cards will be available. There is a real problem with many of these technological developments in that they are not always available on time. As was said in the previous debate, we must look forward to normality being restored in Northern Ireland. But until that is so, as the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, it is absolutely vital that we do everything that we can to shore up best democratic practice. That is why I can say with absolute vehemence from these Benches that we shall have no truck with any kind of electoral malpractice that goes on. If democracy in Northern Ireland is to take root, electoral malpractice has to be abolished. That is why we have tabled various amendments. We are most grateful that the Government feel able to accommodate us, especially as regards the national insurance provisions.
	For the sake of brevity, I should point out that we shall not be pressing our amendments that seek to improve the identity card in certain respects, and so on. We look forward to hearing the Government's response on Report to those proposals.

Lord Glentoran: I, too, should like to thank the Minister for his letter. I am also grateful to him for his kindness and courtesy in keeping me informed of the progress that he was making on these matters. If we are able to include a requirement for the provision of national insurance numbers on registration as further proof of identity, it will be a great step forward for the Bill. I do not wish to become bogged down in bureaucracy, but I was a little concerned when the Minister referred to whether or not someone had such a number. I wonder how we can stop people bluffing through the process and claiming that they do not have one—or, indeed, pretending that they do not have one when they have—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was probably speaking rather too quickly in my earlier remarks. Perhaps I may clarify the situation. If someone claims that he does not have a national insurance number when he has, that will be a criminal offence.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We should also like to feel comfortable that the national insurance numbers used in the prevention of fraud will be checked out with the department responsible for such information. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his full response.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Having received the letter from the Minister and having heard his confirmatory response in the Chamber, I am content to beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 7:
	After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTRATION: NOTIFICATION OF MULTIPLE REGISTRATIONS
	(1) In section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (maintenance of registers: annual canvass) there is inserted—
	"(5A) The information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purposes of a canvass in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered."
	(2) In section 10A (maintenance of registers: registration of electors) and section 13A (alteration of registers) of the 1983 Act at the end there is inserted—
	"( ) An application for registration in respect of an address in Northern Ireland shall include an indication of any other address at which the person is registered."
	(3) Any person knowingly giving false information in response to any requirement of this section is guilty of an offence with liability on summary conviction to—
	(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or
	(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both."

Lord Glentoran: Amendment No. 7 relates to notifications of multiple registrations, and would make it an offence to "knowingly" falsify information when applying for registration in Northern Ireland. I believe that this is a key element in the fight against electoral fraud. It has long been the case that electors have been able to register at several addresses, provided that they were qualified to do so. Nevertheless, that was with the proviso of voting once only in a single election. To a certain degree this was left to the goodwill of the elector, though the "A form"—that is to say, the registration form—sets out quite clearly that it is an offence to vote more than once in a particular election. In most incidences it would be almost impossible to detect whether in fact a voter had voted twice; and would, therefore, be open to widespread fraud.
	The registers can be checked after the ballot as to who has voted, but without an indication that, for example, Mr Smith of 9 The Glen is the same Mr Smith of 21 Acacia Avenue. If both vote at present, we would be none the wiser as to whether it was the same person. Therefore, under the threat of financial or custodial sanction, my amendment would require would-be electors to indicate that they have registered at another address. I should like to go so far as to say that they should be obliged to give the full details of that address wherever it may be within the United Kingdom.
	It has often been said of Irish elections that voters "vote early and often". That quote was first used by Martin Van Buren in his Advice to Electors in 1836, and more often attributed to William Miles of South Carolina in a speech he made to the House of Representatives in 1858 where he stated:
	"'Vote early and vote often', the advice openly displayed on the election banners in one of our northern cities".
	So that is not something new.
	We may not have been displaying that sentiment quite so boldly, but without knowing whether someone is registered on more than one register we have no way of knowing whether they have voted early or often. I hope that my amendment will help prevent the likelihood of that happening. I also hope that the Minister will be able to give support to my amendment. Indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in an answer to Stephen Hesford in another place said:
	"My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge the importance of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland to the stability of the political institutions there. On multiple registration, he will recollect that, on Third Reading, I undertook to consider whether there should be a requirement in Northern Ireland for those seeking to register to advise the chief electoral officer whether they were already registered or had tried to register at another address. I can now confirm that I intend to give the chief electoral officer powers to ask those questions during the canvass, starting in autumn 2002. Any person who knowingly gives a false answer to that question will be liable for a fine of up to £1,000".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/01; col. 319.]
	We welcome that answer. It will, I understand, apply not only to registering at two separate addresses without indicating at registration; it will also apply to trying to register. The penalty proposed by the answer given in the other place on 5th December 2001 is less than that proposed in my amendment, but we on these Benches would be happy to give way to that lesser penalty, albeit that this is a serious crime which eats into the foundation of our democracy. Nevertheless I must say that we are disappointed it has not appeared as an amendment to the Bill. Can the noble and learned Lord give me the assurance either that he will accept my amendment or that a similar amendment will be forthcoming on Report? I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I recognise that there is a well-founded concern here. My colleague, Mr Browne, has been in touch with a number of different parties and organisations to deal with it. I hope that my response is helpful. We intend to give the Chief Electoral Officer the power by regulation to require electors in Northern Ireland to indicate at registration if they are registered at more than one address. A question such as: "Have you registered at another address or do you intend to register at another address?" can be put to electors on application to the electoral register by regulation rather than by an amendment to the Bill. That is what we propose to do.
	Under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, regulations may authorise the CEO to require persons to give information required for the purpose of his duties as a registration officer. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 enables regulations to make it an offence to fail to comply with, or give false information in pursuance of, any such requisition of the registration officer as I have mentioned relative to paragraph 1. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right to say that we proposed a penalty not exceeding level three, which in Northern Ireland would be £1,000. Therefore, by giving the CEO the power by regulation to ask that question, any person knowingly giving false information will be subject to that penalty.
	The noble Lord is also right to say that because of the measures in this Bill the entire electoral registration process in Northern Ireland will change towards the latter part of this year. From this year's annual canvass in October people will be required to complete individual registration forms as opposed to the household forms used in the past which offered greater opportunity for fraud and, of course, for pretending that one did not know what was on the form. People will also be required to give additional personal data on the forms, signatures and dates of birth, and the chief electoral officer will be able to store all that additional information on the new IT system currently being installed.
	The question on multiple registration will be included on the new individual registration form at this year's annual canvass and any person knowingly giving false information will be subject to a fine not exceeding level three. I hope that I have met the concerns of which the noble Lord has spoken in the past and that he regards it as a constructive response.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he aware of the practice—steps have already been taken to curtail, if not to prevent, it— of people who live close to the frontier with the Irish Republic but south of the Border coming into Northern Ireland, assuming a Northern Ireland address and registering for a vote on the register? That practice is to some extent curtailed by the three-month residency requirement which is not something that is applied here in Great Britain. I believe that the rolling registration in Great Britain is intended to try to encourage more people to come to the polls. However, because of the likelihood of abuse, there is a three-month residency requirement for Northern Ireland. Yet that in itself is open to abuse if not properly policed. Can the noble and learned Lord assure me that within the canvass, and the basis on which it will be carried out, there will at least be some awareness that there can be an abuse of that kind and that perhaps the canvass form will be drafted in such a way as to make that abuse more difficult?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for that point. I hope that I may take it on board and transmit it to officials to see whether I can give a satisfactory answer. I hope that I can. I am not aware of the extent of the fraud and I hope that I am not being complacent. Virtually every electoral registration system of which I am aware is capable of being interfered with, but I accept that we have to take every possible step that we can to make them foolproof. I shall do the best I can to research a fuller answer for the noble Lord.

Lord Glentoran: I again thank the noble and learned Lord for that most helpful answer. Without wishing to cast any aspersions that I am not taking his comments at face value, or that there is anything else at issue, I should like to take the amendment away at this stage and discuss it with others as regards using regulation rather than legislation. Is it possible for the regulation to be published before Report or Third Reading of the Bill?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I promise to use my best endeavours. I cannot guarantee, of course, that the process of drafting will be complete, but I shall certainly do my very best to bring that about.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Absent votes and declarations of identity]:

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 3, line 32, after "application" insert "is made on a form supplied by the Chief Electoral Office for Northern Ireland containing such marking or coding as he may determine and"

Lord Glentoran: In moving Amendment No. 8, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 10. Both amendments concern absentee voting. That has also been a well used method of creating an artificially high vote by those skilled in these matters. Indeed, I believe that it was said at Second Reading that one party arrived at the electoral officer's desk 24 hours before the election with 10,000 papers for absentee voting. I do not need to say which party was involved but, of course, it was quite impossible for them to be administered.
	These amendments suggest that absentee voting should take place only on a form supplied by the electoral officer and that it should be coded and so become traceable. It does not necessarily have to be traced to determine what the vote was, but it should at least be traceable to the party that collected and used it. I believe that this issue represents one of the biggest holes in the Bill still left to be filled. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Very briefly, with those qualifications and what I regard as a strengthening of the position, I support the amendment. I do so because I may have a guilty conscience. I was mainly responsible for arguing that citizens in Northern Ireland should have postal votes for absentee voting. When that system was extended to Great Britain, the Home Office, under previous management, decided that the citizens of Northern Ireland should be deprived of it. Fortunately, I persisted and, in the end, won the battle. But I realise that in that little victory I may have left a few doors open.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I do not believe that there is much difference here between my own approach and that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I do not consider it necessary to insist on the form proposed in Amendment No. 8 because that would mean that only an original form provided by the CEO could be used.
	I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the coding aspect. The Chief Electoral Officer already has plans to take administrative measures to ensure that applications for an absent vote are given a unique identifier. I agree with his caution: one must be careful to ensure that it is not possible to identify the way in which a citizen has voted in a secret ballot. The Chief Electoral Officer plans to introduce either a serial number or a bar code. As he is already going to do that, we do not need to legislate for it.
	The reason that I am cautious about the original form is that there may be some circumstances in which a photocopy may be necessary. The coding would still be on it. Therefore, I believe that the coding or the identifier is more important than the fact that the form is the original. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment because I hope that we have met his purpose.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord. We are certainly both going down the same road. Of course, as the noble and learned Lord knows, as I understand it at present the forms can be produced by any or all parties and they are totally uncontrolled. If, in the Bill, the Government are able to get the application forms for absentee voting under control, I shall be most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Electoral identity card]:

Lord Smith of Clifton: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
	"(4A) The information contained in subsection (4)(a) to (d) above shall also be stored electronically on a computer chip incorporated into the electoral identity card provided for by this section.".

Lord Smith of Clifton: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can assure me that this matter will be looked at. The amendment simply proposes a technical improvement—one that may well already be envisaged by those who are drawing up the specification for the identity card. But the reason for tabling the amendment is to ensure that such a technical improvement can be made. If the Minister can assure me that the matter will be considered between now and Report, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we are looking at this issue. One problem is that at this stage an electronic chip such as that proposed in the amendment has a relatively short life expectancy—only about five years. At present we have no plans to introduce electronic voting. I believe that the true concern of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, relates to a situation in which a card might be used not only for identification purposes, as is its present purpose.
	If we were to move to electronic voting—not in your Lordships' House but in Northern Ireland—then of course the electronic chip might well be needed. At present I do not believe that it is needed. In any event, the technology is time-limited to approximately five years and is also rather expensive. Since it is to be used as an identifying document rather than for electronic voting, that is the present state of the Government's thinking. I hope that that is helpful.

Lord Smith of Clifton: It is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 12:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"VOTERS: SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS
	(1) From 1st May 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to election in Northern Ireland, imported into Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c. 2), is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
	(2) For sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) there is substituted—
	"(a) the plastic photographic card which is, or forms the counterpart of, a current licence to drive a motor vehicle;
	(b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Republic of Ireland;
	(c) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass issued by the Northern Ireland Department of Regional Government;
	(d) a current electoral identity card issued under section 13C of this Act."".

Lord Glentoran: This amendment has two purposes, one of which I have discussed with the noble and learned Lord and I know that he is not anxious to include it in the legislation. But at this stage we would still like to see it included. It is possible that I am dealing with the second point first, but the amendment seeks to ensure that the application date is in place before the May 2003 elections take place in Northern Ireland.
	Secondly—this is perhaps the more substantive part—the amendment seeks to ensure that all would-be electors are in possession of photographic evidence as to their identity. That matter is referred to in paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill as follows:
	"The electoral-ID card proposed by this Bill will be added to the list of specified documents. In due course it is proposed to replace all the non-photographic ID on the list of specified documents (though the Bill makes no provision to this effect). Thereafter the electoral-ID card, the passport and the driving licence would be the only ID acceptable at the polling station. No one will be disenfranchised until they have had every reasonable opportunity to acquire photographic ID".
	For those who live in England or outside Northern Ireland, that may sound rather a tall order. But for many years in Northern Ireland we have had photographic identification of every shape and size. If one moved around the Province during the days of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s and wanted to pass reasonably peacefully through police and Army blocks or one sort and another, one had to have readily available identification which included a photograph of some kind. That was the case, for example, in respect of our driving licences.
	The purpose of the amendment, about which we feel strongly, is to require a full photographic "kit", for want of a better word, to be in place before the May 2003 elections. Without it, we would still be on fairly weak ground in relation to identification at polling booths, particularly if there were a threat of unpleasantness from a terrorist group hanging round the corner. I beg to move.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I believe that this amendment is very important and should be given due consideration. As I said earlier, the reality is that this matter does not concern individuals who seek to be perverse when it comes to abusing the electoral system; it concerns organised abuse overall. Unless a date is specified for photographic evidence to be produced, then perhaps I may assure Members of the Committee that a diktat will go out from the IRA army council stating that no one will acquire or seek to provide photographic evidence when he or she comes to vote.
	The backbone of the deception practised by Sinn Fein over the years has been the use of the medical card. It is not only a matter of existing medical cards being used improperly; it is a question of the mass reproduction of such cards. There are virtually factories producing medical cards. If one looks old enough and if one has any semblance of life at all, whether one is entitled to vote or not, one will be able to do so. In terms of getting rid of that most widespread of abuses, photographic evidence will be essential. I stress to the Minister that this amendment is well thought out and essential. It is one to which the Government should give due consideration.

Lord Smith of Clifton: We on these Benches strongly support the amendment for the reasons that the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Glentoran, have advanced.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have a valid reason for supporting this amendment. One of the factories producing counterfeit medical cards was situated in my former constituency. Despite that, I managed to scrape through.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Glentoran for slightly different reasons from those adopted by other noble Lords who have spoken. At Second Reading I said that I did not propose to revisit the delays that had been occasioned by the Government's hesitation in coming to conclusions on the matters of combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland during the previous Parliament. However, I shall run through them briefly now in order to reinforce the need for pressure on deadlines and dates.
	In the summer of 1997, under the then Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Office set up a review of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, shortly before the Select Committee in the other place embarked on its analysis. That committee had taken all its evidence and had published its report by March 1998. The Secretary of State gave us grounds to believe that the Government would be able to consider the issues before the European elections of 1999, although I acknowledge that she did not guarantee that conclusions would have been reached or implemented.
	In the event, the Government did not publish their report on their review until October 1998 and did not reply to the Select Committee report until May 1999, which was a full year after a reply to such reports can normally be expected. When the final report from the Government on combating electoral fraud in Northern Ireland was not published until March 2001—just before the last general election—one could not help but feel that it had not been the Government's first priority. Although I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord who is responding to these debates—he has handled them impeccably—he must not be surprised if there is a certain concern about timetabling on this side of the Committee because of past experience.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely accept that. Our aim is to hold the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland in May 2003. Our target is for the removal of all forms, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, of non-photographic identification from the list of specified documents. I am concerned about disenfranchising a significant part of the population. Not everyone has a form of photographic identification as mentioned in the amendment—a driver's licence, a passport or a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass. Some people do not have such forms of identification and some people are rather conservative in their approach to identity cards of whatever kind. No doubt the time will come when such a situation will prevail. I am concerned about disenfranchising and disabling people from voting simply because they will not have photographic identification by May 2003.
	I pay attention to the validity of the points made. I want to reflect on them, although I do not believe that I shall be able to say that by May 2003 everything will be in such order that everyone in Northern Ireland will be equipped with photographic identification. However, I accept that we should aim for that target.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Can he give the Committee some idea of the percentage of the electorate that he believes do not have a driving licence, a passport or an old-age bus pass? I consider that the percentage would be remarkably small. Have the Government considered the matter or carried out any research? Can they tell me whether my assumption is correct?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is quite right. I do not believe that it is possible to put a percentage on that. I was supported in that view by one of the contributions in the Commons. One of the Northern Ireland Members, Mr Robinson, said:
	"I would not vote for the Bill—this is how important the matter is to me—if I thought that the end result would be a significant number of genuine people being unable to vote.
	He continued that,
	"an unspecified number of people, whose total is probably hard to determine, were able to abuse the system".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/01; col. 917.]
	It is a real concern. I do not believe that one can put a mathematical percentage on it.
	On abuse, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that it would be difficult for him to say mathematically how many people have benefited from the medical card factory in the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I am not in a position to be more precise than that. Perhaps I should not have put that question to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, because, with a sinking heart, I feel that he may be about to answer me.
	I shall look at the matter again to see whether I can return with something more definite by way of reply, but by May 2003 I doubt that we shall be morally certain that everyone eligible to vote will have photographic identification. I shall research further the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, but I do not believe that I shall be able to be more precise.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down—there is no edge to this remark at all—I should say that the considerations to which he has drawn attention were part of the report of the Select Committee in March 1998. The sadness is that during the previous Parliament time was lost so that we are unable to meet sensible deadlines for what will be an important election.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a perfectly reasonable observation, to which I can offer no satisfactory gloss.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I do not need to make the point that the election about which all noble Lords are talking will arguably be one of the most important elections ever held in Northern Ireland. It is the job of all noble Lords on all sides of the House to do their best to ensure that the electoral system is as clear of fraud and as fair as possible. In doing that we would not want to disenfranchise anyone. However, turning upside down what the noble and learned Lord has said, if one bracket of people can claim not to have any photographic evidence, we shall return to the realms of people saying on polling day, "I do not have any photographic evidence of myself". Without the problems of disenfranchisement, how do we challenge that and manage it? I feel that the onus is on the Government and their officials to ensure that every single soul on the electoral register in Northern Ireland has a form of photographic identification before May 2003.
	I shall not divide the Committee this afternoon. In his comments the noble and learned Lord has been extremely helpful. I know that if at all possible he wants to deliver. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Offences]:
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
	Clause 6 agreed to.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 14:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
	"INVESTIGATION BY RETURNING OFFICER
	In section 23 of the 1983 Act, after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) Subject to subsection (2B), a returning officer shall investigate the conduct of a particular election for which he is the returning officer upon—
	(a) receipt of a complaint that the election should be invalid;
	(b) being notified of the presentation of a parliamentary election petition; or
	(c) being notified of the presentation of a local election petition;
	and make any information obtained in the course of such an investigation available to the parties to legal proceedings under Part III of this Act.
	(2B) Subsection (2A) shall apply only to complaints or petitions which allege an irregularity in the registration of electors or the misuse of electoral identity cards in that election.""

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are probing amendments. Amendment No. 14 seeks to discover whether the investigative powers of the returning officer can be made more incisive if there has been a complaint about electoral abuse or if there is to be an electoral petition.
	I admit that I am not the number one fan of the present Chief Electoral Officer. After the electoral abuse that occurred in my constituency, I found that there was no desire and indeed no willingness on his part to assist in discovering what the extent of that abuse was. Perhaps more attention should be given to this area. My experience was that not only was the Chief Electoral Officer reluctant to bring forward, within a reasonable timescale, information that should have been forthcoming to those who were forced to petition, but those who could have given evidence were absent from the electoral court when the case was heard.
	If we are to have sanctions to ensure that there is no electoral abuse then it is incumbent on us all to ensure that there are methods and measures which can be employed to bring to book those who orchestrate—I use that term again—those who systematically orchestrate a fraud on the electorate of Northern Ireland. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 so that I can—and I hope that I shall—learn in some detail what Government intend to do to ensure that those provisions contained in the Bill are effective in preventing fraud and have bite if fraud still occurs. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: The amendment proposes a useful tidying up and strengthening of the Bill in this area. I support that.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said very courteously that these are probing amendments. So I have to plunge off into the thickets of what I understand electoral law to be.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 seek to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 in relation to parliamentary and local election petitions. One of the problems is that the 1983 Act does not cover local elections in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that that is a legalistic answer, but the noble Lord asked for some detail.
	Amendment No. 14 would require a returning officer to investigate the conduct of an election on receipt of a complaint that the election should be invalid or being notified of the presentation of a parliamentary or local election petition. He would be required to investigate only where there was an alleged irregularity in the registration of electors or the misuse of electoral identity cards.
	I think that the problem that arises is that an election petition cannot be brought on grounds relating to the register of electors. Appeals about registration decisions can be made to the courts under Sections 56 and 58 of the 1983 Act but not about an election petition. Subject to the appeals on Sections 56 and 58, the register is in effect conclusive.
	By the time we have completed and I hope perfected the Bill, taken as a whole—I stress that no individual remedy will prove the complete answer—Members of the Committee are I think agreed that the accuracy of the register will be improved. The individuals seeking the opportunity to vote will have to complete an individual application form. As I said earlier, he or she will have to provide additional personal data which the CEO will be able to check from his own records and make inquiries elsewhere where he has reason to doubt the authenticity of an application.
	Amendment No. 15 is different. That extends the period of time in which a parliamentary election petition can be presented from 21 days to 28 days where that petition questioned the election or return on the allegation of irregularity in the registration of electors. It would also extend to 28 days the amount of time within which a petition questioning an election or return, on an allegation of an illegal practice, can be amended with leave of the court.
	We have the same problems that I mentioned earlier—an election petition cannot be brought on grounds relating to the register of electors. Election petitions of course can be brought on a whole range of grounds but not on the one on which the noble Lord's amendment is focused. So I do not dissent from his proposition that there are difficulties in electoral law, as I have recently encountered in trying to understand these problems. However, I do not think that his amendments will produce the desired outcome.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
	Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 6, line 32, leave out from "appoint" to end of line 34.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: This matter has probably been fully debated. The amendment seeks to delete from Clause 7(3) the words,
	"and different days may be appointed for different provisions and for different purposes".
	The issue relates directly to a previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It is a paving amendment for phasing out non-photographic forms of ID. In the light of the helpful assurances that we have had so far, and the assurance that the noble and learned Lord will look at other matters that have been raised today, it is not my intention to press this matter either. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. On Amendment No. 16 we need separate commencements. For instance, we want to bring the provisions in relation to the collection of signatures and dates of birth into force early. But we cannot bring in the statutory questions relating to confirmation of date of birth because that information is provided only during the canvass. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, that canvass will not occur until October of this year. We will not be able, for instance, to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to require a signature and date of birth on the absent vote application to be consistent with what is already registered if the registration has not at that stage been completed. We have a deliberate rolling plan to introduce regulations and powers when they are appropriate to meet current circumstances. I hope that that explanation is a little further help.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	In the Title:
	[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
	House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past five o'clock.